Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-09-11Approved by ILPC – 10/9/12 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – September 11, 2012 Present: Sue Stein, Chair Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair Christine O’Malley Michael McGandy David Kramer Stephen Gibian Ashima Krishna Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Lynn Truame, Staff Krin Flaherty, Staff Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearing. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Sage Chapel, Cornell University ― Proposal to Install Window-Well Safety Grates Applicant Randall Nesbitt provided a brief overview of the project. He noted that the safety grates would be attached at mortar joints in the existing window wells so that masonry units would not be impacted, and that the grates would be set approximately four inches lower than the top of the window well masonry so that they would not be readily visible. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, Sage Chapel is an individual local landmark, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 29, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Randall Nesbitt on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) four architectural drawings, labeled EX1, EX2, A1, and A2, showing the proposed safety grates and details for their installation, and existing conditions at the building, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Sage Chapel, and 1 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the installation of two prefabricated aluminum safety grates at two window well locations, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, Sage Chapel was constructed in 1875 as the University’s non-sectarian house of worship. Designed by Cornell’s first professor of architecture, Charles Babcock, the Chapel is an outstanding example of the Victorian Gothic style. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to install safety grates at two window wells to eliminate fall hazards. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. 2 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #1 and Standard #2, the installation of safety grates at these two window well locations will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the installation of safety grates at these two window well locations will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the proposed new black, powder- coated aluminum safety grates are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, these two safety grates can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of Sage Chapel, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley M. McGandy E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer A. Krishna S. Stein No Abstain 3 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 B. Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install Fence Applicants Daniel McClure, Cornell Facilities Management, and Todd Bittner, Cornell Plantations, appeared before the Commission. D. McClure provided a brief overview of the proposed project (a revised version of an application the Commission reviewed at its March 13, 2012 meeting). E. Finegan asked if the fence proposed to be installed on the City guardrail would rise an additional 42 inches above the guardrail. D. McClure replied, yes ― 40 inches of mesh and 2 inches of finial. E. Finegan asked how high the fence behind the tennis courts is. D. McClure replied, 48 inches. E. Finegan asked how high the entire proposed fence, from ground level to top of finial, would be. D. McClure replied, approximately 70 inches (the guardrail itself varies from 28 to 30 inches high). E. Finegan asked if there were any reason the new fence had to be taller than the 48 inch fence located behind the tennis courts. D. McClure responded it is because the guardrail itself creates a ledge that someone could potentially stand on; the fence was designed to compensate for that. T. Bittner added it is important to note that the topography of the site differs significantly from the topography near the tennis courts. The drop-off is significantly steeper at the site. C. O’Malley asked what if any safety signage was planned for the site. T. Bittner replied the applicant created a comprehensive set of signs, both for general orientation purposes and to warn the public about the restricted area behind the fence. All the signs are already in place. Noting the variation in height of adjacent sections, C. O’Malley asked how all the fencing in this area would be joined together. D. McClure replied it would be joined by a series of posts with changes in mesh height occurring at those posts. S. Gibian asked if the posts that are currently in place along the guardrail are a finished installation or if they can be removed. D. McClure replied the majority of them are set in concrete. At the last meeting, E. Finegan recalled, the principal concerns revolved around the height and aesthetic impact of the fence, and the effect it would have on the viewshed and the neighborhood in general. E. Finegan observed he does not see that the current proposal has addressed those concerns in any way. He asked how much flexibility there is for adjusting the height of the fence. He does not understand why the fence needs to be 6 feet high, especially given the applicant’s own assertion that the fence is primarily intended as a visual warning, rather than serving as an absolute barrier. E. Finegan noted even a slight reduction in height of one or two feet would significantly mitigate the visual impact. D. McClure replied that the applicant referred to a variety of model codes to determine the optimal height, including the Department of Transportation’s highway code for elevated sidewalks. Generally speaking, when there is a drop-off of more than 10 feet, the standard height tends to be 42 inches. In his opinion, this 42” should be measured from the top of the guardrail because the guardrail, though not a walking surface, does present a ledge that someone could stand on. S. Gibian asked if it would be possible to install the fence on the side closest to the road, thus avoiding the whole issue of people stepping up onto the guardrail. D. McClure replied that may be possible. D. Kramer stressed the Commission is not charged with evaluating any potential safety concerns. The only criteria it is charged with following are the proposed fence’s compatibility with the historic 4 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 character of the district, the alteration of the spaces and features that characterize the property, and so on. D. Kramer asked if it would be possible to install the fence on the far side of the stone wall, to preserve the viewshed. T. Bittner replied he does not believe that would be possible, given that the entire reason for the proposed fencing is that the stone wall failed. The wall is clearly more than 100 years old and continues to deteriorate. He added that, when the posts were being driven into the ground, voids were being discovered in the rock below the road (which is why some of the posts are more loosely secured in the middle). As a result, it would be highly impractical to try and construct anything on such unstable ground on the other side of the stone wall. Furthermore, any such fence would still need to be 42 inches high. T. Bittner urged the Commission to include the general public welfare as one of its criteria for reviewing the application. Assistant City Attorney Krin Flaherty explained that the Commission is primarily charged with reviewing aesthetic and historic preservation issues. While the Commission is certainly free to listen to any safety concerns associated with the project, it is ultimately required to base its decision on whether the proposed fence adheres to the standards delineated in the City Ordinance. D. McClure asked what the appropriate venue would be for addressing safety concerns. K. Flaherty replied she believes that would be the Board of Public Works (BPW). T. Bittner remarked the applicant does not believe it is recommending installing anything that would be out of character. Over the decades, he noted, a number of different types of fencing have been employed to define the gorge, and they have not necessarily followed any model of aesthetic or historic appropriateness. There is a long-standing tradition of having fences around the edge of the gorge to secure the perimeter. T. Bittner added that the gorge edge changes over time, which seriously complicates any effort to install any kind of structure along the edge and limits the options for concealing the fence in any way, given the steep nature of the precipice on the other side of the stone wall. S. Gibian observed there are some healthy trees along between the wall and the edge of the gorge. He asked if it would not be possible to use those trees to support the fence, so posts do not have to be driven into the ground. D. McClure replied that, although two or three trees could conceivably be used for that purpose, this could only be done along a small segment of the road. There would be little point in fencing only that small portion of Fall Creek Drive. D. Kramer remarked that ― since the applicant freely admits the fence will not actually prevent people from climbing over it ― he does not understand the reason for installing the fence, in the first place. T. Bittner replied the fencing only constitutes a part of a larger comprehensive strategy for preventing people from going too close to the gorge edge (e.g., the Gorge Stewards program will help to warn people they are in a dangerous location and risk being issued a ticket for being in a restricted area). Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. 5 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Leslie Sandman, 310 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He noted the guardrail that was installed is both unsightly and dangerous; and installing a fence on top of it only serves to make it more so. He added that the only reason a barrier is not being proposed for installation along the edge of the gorge is that it would be more expensive for the applicant. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by A. Krishna. S. Stein solicited Commission members for their comments and asked them to provide some indication of how they would be likely to vote on the matter. S. Gibian indicated the location and height of the fence are the major problems for him. He added that the ‘no man’s land’ in between the fence and the stone wall is also highly unattractive. He wishes the fence could simply be installed beyond the stone wall. C. O’Malley expressed a similar opinion. She is also concerned with the ‘no man’s land’. She encouraged the applicant to come up with an alternative solution, like the one S. Gibian suggested. E. Finegan indicated he agrees with S. Gibian and C. O’Malley. If the proposed fencing were only a temporary solution, he could envision the Commission being more receptive. One of his principal concerns is the fence height. If the fence could be lowered even by just a foot, so as to not obscure the viewshed as much, perhaps it would be something the Commission might accept as a temporary solution. D. Kramer agreed with the other Commission members, although he remarked he feels considerably more negative in his assessment of the fence’s compatibility with the massing, size, scale, and features of the property and its environment. He does not believe it is remotely compatible. Given the Commission’s charge, M. McGandy remarked, he could not support approving a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, although he might consider allowing the fence on a temporary basis, in deference to the safety concerns the applicant has raised. M. McGandy indicated he finds it incredible that more time and effort would not produce an appropriate solution that the Commission would be willing to accept. A. Krishna also agreed with the other Commission members. While she certainly prefers the new mesh- like fencing to the chain-link fence, she wishes it could be installed further out, closer to the gorge and away from the road. S. Stein agreed with the comments that have been expressed. As a Fall Creek Drive resident, she has directly witnessed the impact the fence would have on the neighborhood. In her mind, the guardrail should not be there. While the current proposal is the best the Commission has seen, she does not see how the fence could possibly be accepted as a permanent solution. She would like to see a solution that would be both safe and compatible with the area. 6 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 At this point, L. Truame remarked, the Commission may choose to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness, but it may also choose to include a statement in the resolution approving the proposed fence on a temporary basis, to address the safety issue while still allowing time to arrive at a more appropriate permanent solution. D. Kramer asked what precedent, if any, existed for this, and how the matter would be handled once the permitted temporary period had elapsed. K. Flaherty responded that after that time it would become an enforcement issue and the Commission and the City Attorney’s office would need to assess how to proceed. Every effort would be made work with the applicant to ensure a satisfactory solution could be identified. RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 22, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Dan McClure on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) captioned photographs of existing conditions in the project area; and (3) a narrative describing the applicant’s understanding of how the proposed project relates to each of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves adding a 42-inch high pedestrian rail atop City-owned guiderail along the north side of the stone wall on Fall Creek Drive, east of the Suspension Bridge. The currently-installed black posts would be trimmed to the 42-inch height, and topped with a black cast-iron finial similar to what has been installed at Treman Triangle on Linn Street. A black stainless steel cable netting material would be secured behind the posts to a point below the guardrail, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and 7 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. The natural stone retaining wall along Fall Creek Drive in the location of the proposed fence is identified in Section 7 of the National Register Nomination for the Cornell Heights Historic District as likely being an original landscaping feature within the district. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to complete the installation of the proposed 42”-tall fence atop the City guardrail along Fall Creek Drive. On March 13, 2012, the ILPC reviewed an application submitted by Cornell University for installation of a 42”-high, black, vinyl-coated chain link fence in this location. The Commission found that the proposal was not in keeping with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards #2 and #9 and denied the requested Certificate of Appropriateness. In its resolution, the Commission stated that: the fence, as proposed, would create a visual, as well as physical, barrier that would isolate the stone retaining wall from the rest of the district; that installation of the proposed fence would result in a severe negative impact on the historic viewshed in this unique location; that the modern man-made material of the proposed fence, its size (particularly its height), and its scale were not compatible with the material, size, and scale of the low natural-stone retaining wall; and that the height of the proposed fence was additionally problematic for the negative impact it would have on the view from this historic overlook, altering the unique character and historic integrity of this location within the district. The proposal now before the Commission differs from the proposal submitted on March 13, 2012 in the following respects: black stainless steel cable netting material is proposed in lieu of the originally-proposed black, vinyl-coated chain link, and round-ball finials are proposed to be installed atop the already-installed fence posts. 8 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Standard #2, the proposed fence will not remove distinctive materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. In spite of the increased transparency of the netting material proposed, the fence continues to create a visual, as well as physical, barrier that would isolate the stone retaining wall from the rest of the district and its installation would result in a negative impact on the historic view shed in this unique location. With respect to Standard #9, the proposed fence will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. 9 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Also with respect to Standard #9, and with respect to Principle #3, the proposed fence is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. In spite of the change to the proposed netting material, the modern man-made material of the proposed fence, its size (particularly its height), and its scale remain incompatible with the material, size, and scale of the low natural-stone retaining wall, and the height of the proposed fence continues to be problematic for the negative impact it would have on the view from this historic overlook, altering the unique character and historic integrity of this location within the district. With respect to Standard #10, the fence can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and be it further RESOLVED, the incompatibility of the fence, as proposed, with the Principles and Standards set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance notwithstanding, the ILPC, in recognition of the safety concerns expressed by the applicant, approves the installation of the fence, as proposed, on a temporary basis, to provide more time to arrive at an appropriate design solution. This approval will expire on September 11, 2013, by which time the fence, as currently proposed, must either be removed or altered to conform to the Principles and Standards set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-1-0 Yes E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Gibian A. Krishna C. O’Malley S. Stein No D. Kramer Abstain C. 508 Thurston Ave. (Kappa Kappa Gamma), Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Alter Front Entry Walk, Steps, & Associated Hardscape David Fernandez and Chris Gruber, Cayuga Landscape Company, Inc., appeared before the Commission. D. Fernandez provided an overview of the proposed project. 10 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 E. Finegan asked how the drainage would work on the wall. C. Gruber indicated a drain tile would be situated behind the wall (a drain tile is a four-inch perforated flexible pipe). When water rolls down the hill, it would hit a column of very porous stone, flow to the bottom of the wall, encounter the drain tile, and exit from behind the wall. S. Gibian observed that the massing of the building is very symmetrical, with the protruding center bay, and the layout of the landscape does not really reflect the symmetry of the building. D. Fernandez responded that the decision was made to situate the terrace off center to preserve the large, healthy crabapple tree on the property. M. McGandy asked the applicant if he knew if the original paving had been composed of stone flags. D. Fernandez replied that the current paving appears to be a pastiche of different paving styles from the last 50 years. He does not believe any of it is original. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Gibian. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, 508 Thurston Avenue is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated June 28, 2012 was submitted for review on August 29, 2012 to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Fernandez on behalf of property owner Kappa Kappa Gamma, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a copy of the budget proposal for the work, photographs showing existing conditions, and examples of the proposed flagstones, flagstone steppers, and dry-laid stone wall; and (3) three landscape drawings depicting the proposed new work in plan, elevation, and perspective, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 508 Thurston Avenue and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves renovation of the front entry walk, steps, and planting areas to provide new walks and steps, and a new patio seating area, and 11 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the date of construction for 508 Thurston Avenue is unknown. It replaced an earlier structure on this site, which existed as late as 1924. The Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority has owned the property since 1922. Although its date of construction is unknown, 508 Thurston Avenue possesses a high level of integrity and, unless firm evidence of a post-1937 construction date is presented, it will be considered a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to alter existing landscaping and hardscaping at the front yard area to provide a new patio seating area, new walkways, and new steps. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: 12 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the proposed new landscape and hardscape elements will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new landscape and hardscape elements will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new landscape and hardscape elements are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed new landscape and hardscape elements can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 13 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0 Yes D. Kramer E. Finegan S. Gibian A. Krishna M. McGandy C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain D. 609 E. State St., East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Approve Installation of Garbage Enclosure The applicant was not present to appear before the Commission. Review of the proposed project was deferred until later in the meeting. E. 123 Roberts Place, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Approve Replacement of Windows & Gutters Applicant Ben DeLuca and Arthur Rawlings, Rawlings Construction, appeared before the Commission. B. DeLuca provided an overview of the work that was undertaken. M. McGandy asked if the applicant had any documentary evidence of the appearance and condition of the windows and gutter that were removed. A. Rawlings replied, no. He indicated, however, that in his opinion the appearance of the windows from the outside is unchanged. C. O’Malley asked if A. Rawlings has a background or previous work experience in assessing the physical condition of wood windows for the purpose of repair. A. Rawlings replied, no. B. DeLuca remarked that the windows (the ones on the upper floors in particular) were so deteriorated that they were open to the exterior, in some areas (enabling bats, insects, spiders, and mice to infiltrate the building). Some windows would not open at all, some windows were painted shut, and some windows would open, but would only remain open if propped. S. Gibian asked if the original windows were single glazed wooden windows with divided lights. B. DeLuca replied, yes. S. Gibian asked if the replacement windows have full applied grilles or grilles between the glass. A. Rawlings replied, grilles between the glass. S. Gibian asked if the original gutters were half-round or K-style gutters. B. DeLuca replied there were no gutters at all in the rear. He thinks that one rusted-out gutter in the front may have been a half-round gutter. He noted that the gutters on the roof of the house were either rusted out or non-existent, which created major problems along the side of the house, such as insect infestations and water damage. E. Finegan asked if the realtor or attorney informed the applicant that the house is in a historic district. B. DeLuca replied he does not recall; but he did know it was in a historic district. He simply did not realize there were restrictions associated with the work that was done. 14 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 D. Kramer asked for guidance on how the Commission should proceed at this point, in a case like this. L. Truame indicated that the Commission periodically receives requests for a retroactive approval of a given project; however, until now all requests were for projects that were reversable. This is the first time, in L. Truame’s tenure, that the Commission has reviewed a completed project that cannot be reversed; however, she stressed, the Commission should still apply the same criteria for approval that they would have applied if the application had come before them prior to the work being done. D. Kramer asked if the applicant would be permitted to return to the Commission with a hardship appeal, if the application were denied. L. Truame replied, no, since it is a self-imposed hardship. If it is denied, the City Attorney’s office would take over the process and there would be some discussion between the City Attorney and the ILPC regarding possible next steps. S. Stein observed it appears some wooden windows remain. B. DeLuca replied, yes, on the back side of the house and also one on the front and center of the house. M. McGandy remarked that while appearance and aesthetics are clearly important in considering the matter, the actual materials themselves are important as well. B. DeLuca remarked that not all the windows were original wood windows. Some of them were plastic or some other non-original material. The applicant’s foremost objective was to make the new windows appear as consistent as possible, but also be functional and efficient. S. Gibian noted that, if the Commission were reviewing the application prior to the work being done, it would be considering whether the replacement windows would retain the same light pattern. In looking at some 2008 photographs from the assessor’s office, he is not convinced the same light patterns were retained. The windows should also include a simulated divided light, rather than the grilles between the glass. S. Gibian also observed that there used to be half-round gutters on at least three different areas of the house, which would have been the preferred choice. S. Stein solicited comments from the other Commission members. S. Gibian indicated that one of his problems with the project is the lack of any indication of which windows were replaced and which ones were not (as well as other details about the alterations). He is most concerned with the differences in light patterns and gutter profiles. C. O’Malley agreed with S. Gibian. She added that, if something could be worked into the resolution explaining how the situation might be remediated, it would be helpful to the homeowners and future applicants. E. Finegan indicated he would find it very difficult to approve the application retroactively, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. D. Kramer remarked he does not believe the Commission has any real choice but to deny the application, according to the criteria it is charged with following. 15 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 M. McGandy indicated he could not support issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness based upon the evidence. A. Krishna agreed with the other Commission members. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by A. Krishna. WHEREAS, 123 Roberts Place is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, the property owners, Ben and Laurie DeLuca, have replaced existing half-round gutters and an unspecified number of original wood windows with vinyl replacement windows, without first obtaining a Building Permit or a Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, a retroactive Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 26, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Ben DeLuca, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s), and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Building Department has provided the ILPC with product information for the installed windows, which was submitted by the owner’s contractor as part of the retroactive Building Permit process, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 123 Roberts Place, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves approval of the replacement of half-round gutters with K-style gutters, and of an unspecified number of historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows (all of which work has already been completed), and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and 16 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 123 Roberts Place was constructed in 1902 in the Tudor Revival style. Designed by architect Clarence Martin, the building was home from 1910 through 1931 to Professor John Henry Comstock, who operated the Comstock Publishing Company (now Cornell University Press) from the adjacent buildings at 124 and 126 Roberts Place. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a relatively high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to approve the replacement of half- round gutters with K-style gutters and of an unspecified number of historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows (all of which work has already been completed). In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. 17 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the replacement of the half-round gutters with K-style gutters and the historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows has removed distinctive materials and has altered features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the property owner has stated their opinion that the severity of the deterioration of both the half-round gutters and the historic wood windows was such that their replacement was required. However, since the original materials have already been disposed of, the ILPC is unable to make an independent assessment of their condition. At the public hearing on September 11, 2012, the owner stated that the condition of the windows was not evaluated by a qualified restoration contractor, experienced in the repair of wood windows, for the purpose of assessing the potential for their repair prior to their removal. The owner’s contractor, Arthur Rawlings, stated that in his opinion approximately one third of the windows that were replaced were beyond repair, while approximately two thirds could have been repaired. Mr. Rawlings also stated that he was not an expert in the repair of historic wood windows. Also with respect to Standard #6, the replacement windows do not match the old in design, color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities. The light configuration of at least one window, the easternmost replacement window installed at the first-floor level on the main façade, does not replicate the light configuration of the window that was replaced, based on photographs that are publicly available from the Tompkins County Assessor’s office. In addition, the between-pane grid of the replacement windows does not sufficiently replicate the visual qualities of the true divided-light mullions present on the original windows. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the replacement of the half-round gutters with K-style gutters and of the original wood windows with vinyl replacement windows has destroyed historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the replacement windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment in that the size of the original window openings was not altered and most original exterior wood trim was retained. 18 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the replacement of the historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows has had a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC will work with the office of the City Attorney to determine what measures may be available at this point to mitigate, to the extent possible, the negative impacts of the above-described inappropriate alterations. RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0 Yes S. Gibian A. Krishna E. Finegan D. Kramer M. McGandy C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain F. 310 Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Deteriorated Asphalt Shingle Roofing with Synthetic Slate S. Stein recused herself from consideration of the project, given that she lives on the property. Applicant Leslie Sandman provided a general overview of the proposed project. E. Finegan asked what material would be installed as an underlayment beneath the proposed synthetic slate shingles. L. Sandman replied it would be regular roofing felt, with complete coverage, and an ice and water shield. D. Kramer indicated he would like to approve the synthetic slate in this particular case (since it is not replacing existing slate), but he would like to ensure this would not be setting a precedent for the approval of using synthetic slate to replace existing natural slate in the future. L. Truame responded that approving the synthetic slate in this case would not set a precedent for its use as a replacement for natural slate since the material it will be replacing in this case is asphalt shingles. 19 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 310 Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 28, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Leslie Sandman, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2012, the applicant indicated via e-mail that the synthetic slate roofing product being proposed for use on the house was the same product approved by the ILPC at the August 14, 2012 meeting for use on the garage at the same address, and that the size and color of the new synthetic slate would match the existing natural slate on the house as closely as possible, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 310 Fall Creek Drive and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacing existing deteriorated asphalt shingles on one low-slope area of the roof, (which is not visible from the public right of way), with synthetic slate, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 20 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 310 Fall Creek Drive was constructed between 1927 and 1929 in the Tudor Revival style. The house retains its original natural slate roof, except in the area affected by the proposed project. In that location, the original slate was replaced by asphalt shingle at some time in the past. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace the deteriorated section of asphalt shingle roofing with synthetic slate over ice and water shield, to provide a watertight installation that is appropriate for the low pitch of this particular area of roof. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 21 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the replacement of this section of non- historic asphalt shingle with new synthetic slate will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the roofing material that will be replaced is non-historic. Early Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show that the original roofing material in this location was natural slate. A qualified roofer has indicated to the property owner that natural slate is not an appropriate material for this location due to the low pitch of the roof. The property owner wishes to use a product that recalls the appearance of natural slate, but does not wish to reinstall natural slate. Under these specific circumstances, and given the low visibility of the roof area in question, the Commission finds that the proposed new material will sufficiently match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley D. Kramer E. Finegan S. Gibian A. Krishna M. McGandy No Abstain S. Stein D. 609 E. State St., East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Approve Installation of Garbage Enclosure [cont.] The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with the Public Hearing, and subsequent review and discussion of the proposed changes. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by A. Krishna. 22 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 RESOLUTION: Moved by A. Krishna, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 609 E. State Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 27, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Norbert Nolte, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a photograph of the already-constructed garbage enclosure, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the annotated property list entry from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination for 609 E. State Street and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves construction of a garbage/recycling enclosure, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September 11, 2012, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932. As indicated in the annotated property list entry from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination, 609 E. State Street was constructed circa 1910 in the Colonial Revival style. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The purpose of the proposal is to construct a garbage/recycling enclosure that will meet the City of Ithaca’s screening requirements. 23 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the garbage enclosure in its current location will not remove distinctive materials, but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Placement of the garbage enclosure on the front lawn of the residence alters the historic use and character of this green space and obscures the view of the main façade of the building. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the construction of the garbage enclosure will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. 24 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed garbage enclosure is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. In its current, highly visible, location, the size, design, and materials of the garbage enclosure are incompatible with the historic structure. In particular, there is no relationship between the design and detailing of the enclosure and the residence. In addition, the plastic lattice and modern metal roofing are materially incompatible with the historic structure. With respect to Standard #10, the garbage enclosure can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0 Yes A. Krishna M. McGandy E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST (none) III. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Revision to Approval Letter Process L. Truame remarked that ever since she started in her Historic Preservation Planner role it occurred to her it would make considerable sense to issue an actual Certificate of Appropriateness document, which had never been done before. As a result, she created a one-page Certificate of Appropriateness, which contains a brief summary of the Commission’s decision, along with bullet points delineating the major details and conditions of the decision. The full resolution would be attached to this certificate. L. Truame recommended dispensing with the letters of decision which were being generated, since they do not appear to serve a purpose at this point (and they even sometimes delay the process of formally notifying the applicants of the decisions). There were no objections to her proposal. 25 of 26 ILPC Minutes September 11, 2012 26 of 26 IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • August 14, 2012 (Regular Meeting) The approval of the minutes was deferred. VI. STAFF REPORT A. Potential Henry St. John Local Historic District ― Update L. Truame announced that her predecessor submitted a $5,000 grant application to the Preserve New York program (organized by the Preservation League of New York State and the New York State Council on the Arts), which was approved and then used to hire Historic Ithaca to research and prepare the nomination for the Henry St. John historic district. She noted that the Henry St. John neighborhood is a section of the city that has been recognized for years as having the potential to become a historic district, but had simply never been taken through the process (largely because of the lack of staff time and the need for funding to hire a third party). This process has now been completed, however, and it will start to work its way through the formal designation process fairly quickly. L. Truame plans to hold a couple of informal public information sessions about the proposed district and the designation process, at which Historic Ithaca will present an overview of the history and major characteristics of the Henry St. John district, how it was evaluated, how the boundaries were decided upon, etc. After these information sessions, a formal notification to property owners will be issued and the designation request will be submitted to the Commission for its consideration. The Commission will be charged with determining whether to recommend the designation of the district to Common Council. L. Truame added that one of the reasons for moving the process forward at this time is that the New York State Homeowner’s Rehabilitation Tax Credit program will only be in place through the end of 2014, at which time it will sunset. It is not clear whether the program would be renewed. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission